That assumes, doesn't it, that he (a) knows that this planet is inhabited, if not perhaps Civilised, and ( knowing that, they'd then decide that they wanted to make Contact? Would it not be equally likely that they'd want to study the planet and everything about it, not just us, in a proper, systematic manner, just like we do in our tentative efforts at planetary exploration so far? Wouldn't making Contact with the dominant species skew the results? wouldn't it be the proper scientific thing to do not to try to interfere- because making Contact would surely interfere - and just observe? For that probes, at least, if not manned craft, would be needed, and if anyone was to ask me I'd say that might be a reasonable explanation for UFO Sightings.

NO!! LOL.

We do not fly out to a planet to see if it is there, we find it in a telescope, then scan it as much as is possible, learn what we can, and then send probes. How is it not sensible to extend the scan to make a phone call if initial indications show intelligent life? Do you think if we found intelligent life on Mars that we would not have contacted them by now? I bet Percival Lowell would have made the call himself. These days we know the composition of a planet, what to expect there, how hot it is, even the light levels and if we could survive there.

If it was a dead planet made of Diamond, we would know that, already we know what is an "earth like" planet from incredible distances.

You are also assuming evolution was different and two apex predators arose, and are at odds with each other? That seems more Star Trek than astrobiology? And even then, why would a lesser species become aware of such transmission first, if another species is as you say more advanced?

Why would it be the scientific thing not to interfere? That works on Star Trek, but they only do not contact Pre Warp civilisations in fear of accelerating their development and changing the natural course of history but who is to say space travel and contact is unnatural? We crossed Oceans and did it as soon as we possibly could. And if the other species is intelligent enough to respond, who is more advanced than who? And if they are more advanced, is it even conceivable that we might approach them with stealth? And what would stop us from speaking to others who are at our level of development and also trying to make a phone call?
It's not how our history went, it's only how our popular Sci Fi shows run.

Why would you not go this way when it gives you as much information as one could possible hope for, carries no danger to those involved, is as fast as we know is possible and has little cost by comparison? What is to lose? Little cost, no risk, much bang for your buck.

Or maybe I just like my phone more than robots

Edited by psyche101, 09 January 2013 - 08:47 AM.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

Oh, he popped back in over the Festive holiday season, but then I think said that he had better things to do and went orf again.

Well I hope he brings a note, this better be good

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

We do not fly out to a planet to see if it is there, we find it in a telescope, then scan it as much as is possible, learn what we can, and then send probes. How is it not sensible to extend the scan to make a phone call if initial indications show intelligent life? Do you think if we found intelligent life on Mars that we would not have contacted them by now? I bet Percival Lowell would have made the call himself. These days we know the composition of a planet, what to expect there, how hot it is, even the light levels and if we could survive there.

yes, but how would we know if there was intelligent life without checking it out first? ok, at the distance of Mars we could look at it through telescopes, and we might be able to detect transmissions from there, even if they weren't directed at us, but that wouldn't work at interstellar distances, would it. And why should we assume that, even if they did find that there was (intelligent?) life here, an ET race would want to make Contact with us straight away? Wouldn't it make much more sense to study it thoroughly first, before deciding whether there was any point trying to make Contact? What if this is part of a paogram covering the whole Galaxy, or at least the nearest stars, and they haven't specifically chosen us?

Quote

Why would it be the scientific thing not to interfere? That works on Star Trek, but they only do not contact Pre Warp civilisations in fear of accelerating their development and changing the natural course of history but who is to say space travel and contact is unnatural? We crossed Oceans and did it as soon as we possibly could. And if the other species is intelligent enough to respond, who is more advanced than who? And if they are more advanced, is it even conceivable that we might approach them with stealth? And what would stop us from speaking to others who are at our level of development and also trying to make a phone call?
It's not how our history went, it's only how our popular Sci Fi shows run.

is it not a basic principle of any experiment or observation to just watch and not intervene? Surely it's well known that intervening in something, even if it's something that doesn't involve sentient life, can skew the results.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

Fife is a shady character indeed. He's a politician afterall. Whether he'd seen it or not, he definitely compromised his credibility with the bs he pulled. I guess I can't blame someone for trying to protect their job, but it was a hsitty thing to do, parading a guy in alien suit.

I guess I place more importance on witness testimony than you do, Psyche. Should the court not allow any witness testimony just because some proved to be unreliable? Witness testimonies is an important part of any investigation. Was this the first time that a planes formation flown over a major population area at night? very, very unlikely. Why does this event received so much attention? Are the people of Arizona just more confused or more prone to fantasy as oppose to other instances? I just think where there's smoke, there's fire. There's got to be something there for so many people to say it's not planes.

You believed this to be military. But did the military said it was them (8 o'clock event)? Some dude claimed to be Canadian Snowbirds? But the Snowbirds captain denied being in Arizona at the time. So it's hardly convincing is it?

I think we just have to agree to be on different side of the fence on this issue. I just don't think there are enough evidences to conclusively point either way.

I find the following quite interesting. This is quite scary. But it also explain why many reported UFOs doesn't register on radar.

Here's what it said, "Normally, in a planes formation of seven planes, only the lead plane would turn on is transponder so air traffic controllers could track it. If the lead plane's transponder was turned off, however, the seven planes could passed by without detection"

Another part said, "The Air Traffic System is designed to identify aircraft who want to be identified. I have been aware of instances where the transponder of a medium sized aircraft failed and we flat never saw the guy on the digitized radar. It is very easy to elude FAA radar..."

What the heck?

He confirms that the object or objects did not register on radar as they passed overhead, a fact seconded by Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base. But both admitted that that doesn't rule out the possibility of a group of airplanes. Cotton says that the radar used by air traffic controllers reads signals emitted by transponders in the airplanes themselves.Normally, in a formation of seven planes, only the lead plane would turn on its transponder so air traffic controllers could track it. If the lead plane's transponder was turned off, however, the seven planes could have passed by without detection.Grava says that depending on the planes' altitude, that may have been perfectly legal. (Ortega Great)

The Air Traffic System is designed to identify aircraft who want to be identified. I have been aware of instances where the transponder of a medium sized aircraft failed and we flat never saw the guy on the digitized radar. It is very easy to elude FAA radar... (McIntosh)

yes, but how would we know if there was intelligent life without checking it out first?

By looking at it and listening to it.

Lord Vetinari, on 09 January 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

ok, at the distance of Mars we could look at it through telescopes, and we might be able to detect transmissions from there, even if they weren't directed at us, but that wouldn't work at interstellar distances, would it.

Why not transmissions? If we have a target we can narrow and direct a beam. Remember that we are still talking to the Voyager probes. They are just now entering interstellar space. And it will not be ling before pictures become possible in a recent post I offered you a direct picture and an Extra Solar planet - not an image, not an artists depiction, an actual photo. I believe an amateur has achieved this now, how much longer before we can take a picture that shows lights at night? And if we can tell a planets composition at 100 light years, why would we not be able to detect a planet that has a polluted atmosphere?

Lord Vetinari, on 09 January 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

And why should we assume that, even if they did find that there was (intelligent?) life here, an ET race would want to make Contact with us straight away? Wouldn't it make much more sense to study it thoroughly first, before deciding whether there was any point trying to make Contact?

No, particularly if you are assuming an advanced species. If we are dealing with an advanced species, it seems that it is likely we would be caught "spying" and that could turn real ugly. I believe honesty is the best policy. Make a phone call and say Howdy Do.

If someone does not want to make contact, I do not feel it would be wise to push the issue. After all, it is a big Universe out there. Someone must be friendly. But we have to ask them first don't we?
I do not fathom a situation where there is no point in making contact with an intelligent Aliens species. Maybe reason why one might not want to, but not no point.

Lord Vetinari, on 09 January 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

What if this is part of a paogram covering the whole Galaxy, or at least the nearest stars, and they haven't specifically chosen us?

Should we not worry about finding A planet before deciding if we are suitable for a Galactic Federation? Something of the cart before the horse there I would say?

And again, if they do not want anything to do with us, there will not be much we can do about it is there? If they say go away, I guess we just simply go away.

Lord Vetinari, on 09 January 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

is it not a basic principle of any experiment or observation to just watch and not intervene? Surely it's well known that intervening in something, even if it's something that doesn't involve sentient life, can skew the results.

Not at all, that is for observing animals in nature to understand behavioural patterns. In our history, whenever we have approached other people, we have not been shy about it. We can ask people, we cannot ask animals. That is the point of the observation, to learn what we cannot see. With intelligent species, we just ask.
What results? What the future might hold? Again, that's just a Sci Fi principal. The future is what we make it, if we stand around wondering what will happen if we say hello, we might never get the opportunity. There is no "future police" like in Star Trek to monitor the time line, things are what they are. sometimes they go as planned, sometimes..... not.

No, I think it would be preposterous to cross the stars to simply watch someone. Intergalactic Big Brother. Damn I hate Big Brother, worst show on the telly. We could make contact with a hundred species in the meantime with communications at no risk, and minimal cost. If we get a hostile Alien on the phone, we can just hang up, can't we? Considering the size of space, no matter who we cheese of, we will have time to prepare for any altercation, and perhaps deploy diplomatic solutions in the meantime. Not to mention we might make some powerful allies along the way as well. It can swing both ways, but we wont know if we sit on our hands in fear.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

sorry guys I havent really been in here this week.. been a hell of a week at work.. (52c+ temps most of the week).. so have been knocking off and pretty much having a drink then crashing out..

Ain't it been warm! Not quite so much as you down here on the Goldy, but mate............. cold beer is in high demand! My pool is evaporatine about a cm a day!

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

I know someday
you'll have a beautiful life
I know you'll be a sun
In somebody else's sky
But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:10 AM

psyche101, on 10 January 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

No, I think it would be preposterous to cross the stars to simply watch someone. Intergalactic Big Brother. Damn I hate Big Brother, worst show on the telly. We could make contact with a hundred species in the meantime with communications at no risk, and minimal cost. If we get a hostile Alien on the phone, we can just hang up, can't we? Considering the size of space, no matter who we cheese of, we will have time to prepare for any altercation, and perhaps deploy diplomatic solutions in the meantime. Not to mention we might make some powerful allies along the way as well. It can swing both ways, but we wont know if we sit on our hands in fear.

So I take it you don't exactly agree with Stephen Hawking's warning about alien contact? I haven't made up my mind yet whether it would be good or bad to actively announce our presence however I do think a bit of caution is in order. Otherwise it amounts to a roll of the dice and I'd rather not wager the future on it.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave

Fife is a shady character indeed. He's a politician afterall. Whether he'd seen it or not, he definitely compromised his credibility with the bs he pulled. I guess I can't blame someone for trying to protect their job, but it was a hsitty thing to do, parading a guy in alien suit.

Gidday Mate.

Indeed it was, but his previous charges tell us what an upstanding bloke he is. Fraud, Bankruptcy, and to me most importantly, false statements under oath. The guy is a convicted liar. Yet people call him the salt of the earth when he says "It was ET!" I mean, that speak louder than a billion testimonies.

Real estate pollie get my back up - the ones that do underhanded real estate deals.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 10 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

I guess I place more importance on witness testimony than you do, Psyche. Should the court not allow any witness testimony just because some proved to be unreliable? Witness testimonies is an important part of any investigation. Was this the first time that a planes formation flown over a major population area at night? very, very unlikely. Why does this event received so much attention? Are the people of Arizona just more confused or more prone to fantasy as oppose to other instances? I just think where there's smoke, there's fire. There's got to be something there for so many people to say it's not planes.

Yes, and the courts are fighting to remove testimony.

Are you aware of the Innocence Project, and their achievements? People have spent time on death row, decades in prison, and I have no doubt even died under incorrect eyewitness testimony. Out of all the cases where eyewitness testimony has been overturned by DNA evidence, 75% have been proven wrong. One man spent ten years on death row, innocent, due to eyewitness testimony, it is notoriously unreliable.

And not only that, but it lies in the eye of the beholder. One mans Alien if another mans Devil or Goblin, what someone thinks it proof of ET, someone else thinks is proof of the supernatural, however, none at all are likely to be correct, with testimony it has to be raw to be of any use at all. And that means no personal slant or interpretation. People should not say "I saw a pointy eared alien" they should describe exactly what they saw, and then let people with more experience offer suggestions as to what it could be. A person completely new to a thing is in no position to evaluate it.

EtH'ers will try to convince people to deeply value testimony because it all they have got. That in itself should say something?

There was definitely something in the sky that night, that made people look up when they usually do not, and something that made them come outside of their homes at night when they normally would not. Comet Hale-Bopp. That's the "fire". Another flare demonstration was scheduled at a later date, and many people said Nah not that same, and they are the only one's who's testimony is bandied around everywhere. Many people, including professionals who would know such as Ian Ridpath, said it was very similar. Again, people are useless at Phoenix, for every yes there is a no. It's a dead end. It seems like everyone is saying "This was ET" because that is the stories that papers needed to print a ET story. How many papers would sell if the headlines scrreamed

MILITARY EXERCISE OVER PHOENIX CONFUSES CITIZENS.

?

GIANT ALIEN CRAFT SPOOKS PHOENIX

will sell a great deal more papers, do you not agree?

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 10 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

You believed this to be military. But did the military said it was them (8 o'clock event)? Some dude claimed to be Canadian Snowbirds? But the Snowbirds captain denied being in Arizona at the time. So it's hardly convincing is it?

No that is explained as well, on the page. (the writing you posted was in white, change font colour with the editor and it will be visible)

Quote

The "snowbird" reference may have been an error and the pilots in the aircraft may have stated they were flying Tutors like the Snowbird demonstration team or Middleton/Campbell just placed the snowbird term to the Tutors because they are the ones that commonly fly the craft. It is not commonly known that the Tutor aircraft was flown by units of the Canadian Air Force in 1997 (They were replaced in 2000). The formation may or may not have actually been Tutors but, if they were, they did not have to be the Snowbird demonstration team.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 10 January 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

I think we just have to agree to be on different side of the fence on this issue. I just don't think there are enough evidences to conclusively point either way.

I strongly disagree, and ask what evidence is there for ET? It did not leave the atmosphere, even though one witness said one light "shot up" that also does not mean it left the atmosphere, in fact that might indicate natural phenomena, but I do not feel that is the most likely scenario here. Naga Fireballs do just that - shoot up out of the Mekong Rover. Nobody knows how or why.

Can you provide one instance of any sort of evidence that is not a personal interpretation that indicates ET? I.E. What other than Say So works for ET? There is nothing other than testimony. Does that not offer something of a direction? I can give you something very real that I feel offers a very good solution to the contingent that have convinced themselves that they saw giant craft in the sky - Illusory Contours. Nobody is immune to it. Nobody.

Honestly mate, have a read of this, and tell me honestly that it is not possible that it could explain the contingent spreading the giant craft guff. Is there a white triangle in the above picture? - LINK

I honestly believe that if you try to prove this was ET, you will fail, and miserably. I have not even mentioned the triangulation Boon and Lost Shaman did in the BEIII Thread with the information given by the witnesses. For me, that was the final straw, Phoenix was dead when the witnesses thought they were describing one giant craft hovering over Phoenix, and in the daylight, their own information proves them incorrect. LS and Boon are awesome.

Phoenix is crap. It's just hype made up to sell papers, and make some people feel special. Same with Roswell, Belgium, and most of the "famous" incidents. That does not mean the UFO phenomena is for idiots, not at all, it might draw them in crowds, Belgium was no doubt a natural phenomena, something like a freak Hessdalen instance on steroids and would have been very much worth studying. But just quietly, I could never resolve the Portage County Case. There are some amazing mysteries, and ET just might be a good option in many of them, but not as often as the credulous make out. It's a shame really, those that claim to love the phenomena do the most damage to it. I do not think ET has been here to date, but I do not discount that he might arrive, or perhaps make a call, tomorrow. And it will not be this ambiguous. When ET gets here, we will know, not guess.

Good Post mate. I enjoy our conversations. Thanks, I have been missing Quillius, and you have offered a very interesting conversation in the meantime. As far as "believers" go, mate, Quillius is head and shoulders above most. I hold his view in high regard, and urge that you take a page from his book. He is an excellent investigator, and asks the most astute questions, we can all learn from a good opposing view. It makes one have a closer look at all aspects. You are a good poster with a good attitude, and I think you would be a fine representative no matter which side you deicide to eventually settle upon. You know, I was not always a skeptic. From what I see, in a majority of cases, time tends to do that.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 10 January 2013 - 07:55 AM.

Things are what they are. - MeReality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - CapeoIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac NewtonLet me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed StewartYoutube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - ChrlzsNothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who